Register instrument · Opened 18 Aug 2026 · Certian
A record of decided US cases in which the meaning or application of an AI exclusion endorsement, or of an affirmative AI liability policy, is at issue — coverage disputes about whether a policy responds, not the underlying AI lawsuits themselves. Several trackers already record AI litigation over copyright, privacy and discrimination; none of those is this. No decided case is recorded as of 18 August 2026. This register was opened while the record was empty, so that its first entry arrives with a dated history behind it rather than a page assembled after the fact.
What is recorded. A case enters this register when a US court, state or federal, issues a written decision in which the meaning or application of an AI exclusion endorsement, or of an affirmative AI liability policy, is at issue. Declaratory-judgment actions are recorded on filing and tagged as pending, then updated when decided. Each entry will carry the court, the parties as captioned, the docket number, the form or policy term at issue, the date, and the source.
What is not recorded. Underlying liability suits about AI conduct that raise no coverage question. Regulatory actions and enforcement proceedings, which are a different instrument. Settlements resolved without a written decision. Commentary, client alerts, and predictions. A case is recorded for the policy term it invokes, not for what a commentator says it implies.
The absence is the record. “No decided case recorded” states what this register has examined and what it found. It is not a statement that no case exists. A dispute may be pending, unreported, sealed, in arbitration, or resolved without a written decision, and none of those would appear here. The same rule governs this register that governs the filings sweep: a nil result is a record of a reading, not a finding about the world.
Cadence. Examined alongside the filings sweep, against published coverage-law reporting and publicly searchable court decisions. No schedule is promised. Each examination is entered in the changelog with its date; where the changelog records no examination, none was conducted. Entries are corrected by appended notice rather than by silent rewriting.
No decided case recorded
As of 18 August 2026, this register records no decided US coverage case interpreting an AI exclusion endorsement or an affirmative AI liability policy. The register was opened on this date with the record empty.
Independently reported the same week: on 17 August 2026, a partner practising in insurance coverage litigation told Insurance Journal that there had yet to be a bellwether case indicating how courts and insurers will interpret these exclusions. That is a named practitioner's statement of the same absence, published one day before this register opened.
Cite as: Certian, AI Coverage Litigation Register, certian.com/litigation — with the “last examined” date included. A dated statement that nothing had been decided is citable in the same way an entry is.
Lines under watch: management and professional liability. On 23 July 2026 a partner practising in insurance coverage disputes at Lathrop GPM told Carrier Management that directors and officers and errors and omissions are the lines she would expect to produce the first coverage litigation over AI exclusions, if exclusions are applied aggressively and claims denied. The same reporting records that AI litigation to date has concentrated in intellectual property, privacy, discrimination, consumer protection and securities claims — none of which is a coverage dispute. This register records the signal as a signal: it is a practitioner’s expectation on a stated date, not a prediction by this register and not an entry in the record below.
Why those lines. The endorsement forms already recorded in the AI Insurance Filings Index sit there. The Berkley absolute exclusion amends directors and officers, employment practices and fiduciary liability coverage parts; the Mayflower Specialty programme is written across directors and officers, employment practices and errors and omissions. Where the forms are, the disputes follow.
How this register is examined. Alongside the filings sweep, against published coverage-law reporting and publicly searchable court decisions, on no promised schedule. It records only decisions it has read, or that a named source reports. It does not assert that no case exists anywhere — only what it has examined, and when.
The ISO/Verisk generative-AI exclusions began attaching to commercial general liability renewals on 1 January 2026, and carrier-specific forms predate that. Coverage disputes follow claims, claims follow attachment, and written decisions follow disputes. The interval between an exclusion taking effect and the first decision interpreting it is ordinarily measured in years.
A register opened after the first decision can describe what happened. A register opened before it can state, with dates, what the record showed on every reading in between — including that it showed nothing. That series is the thing that cannot be reconstructed later, which is why this page exists now rather than when it has entries.
The companion record of what is being interpreted is the AI Insurance Filings Index: the endorsement forms and affirmative products themselves, with sources and dates.
Every change to this record is appended to the changelog with its date and basis, and published to the changelog feed. The first entry, when it arrives, will be recorded there in the same form as every other — including the date this register last showed nothing.